For MathML we have a master bug 3251 that we've been making depend
on every new patch for MathML.  That is a very nice in that as new patches
are added and committed, you can get notifications of the changes
in status.

We also have the MathML component that all bugs should be associated
with.  As time goes but, bugs should get filed against the MathML
component but they won't be associated with the master bug for MathML.

What is the preferred process here?

Should we keep the master bug?

Should we use it only for our implementation efforts and not
make it depend on every random bug filed for the MathML

I certainly have my opinion on this.  I'd rather not associated everything
that gets reported with the master bug.  Instead, I'd rather we only
associated our implementation efforts or issues describing "sub-features"
related to implementation of certain "features" of MathML (e.g. glyph
inspection to tighten under/over placement).  We can then make the
bugs filed by random users depend on such implementation efforts
associated with the master bug.

I expect to get a lot of bugs like "my MathML is messed up, here's
an example" where the specifics of "why" will be associated with
a number of different specific technical issues.

Basically, my preference is:

    master bug -> feature or technical issue <- user bug

--Alex Milowski
"The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the
inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language

Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
webkit-dev mailing list

Reply via email to